Merged: Willy ATCO's get 4 weeks holiday, meanwhile CAGRO At Newcastle saves the day!

[C-change]

Radarinfo

Ref the RAAFATC staff performing CAGRS, yes they can use the radar display and yes ,you will be idientified if your IFR and filed a plan.

Remember they are ATC's using the system they are trained to use day in day out when active.

The ADATS system works the same regardless of the service you are provided. You submit your plan, it is addressed at Ausfic in BN Centre and sent electronically to all relevant ATC units just like an e-mail. Each ATC unit has its own unique address. The computer recevies your plan and when your within a set parameter from the field, your label is displayed on the screen for the controller. The code is generated by each centre 45 mins prior to your departure and is correlated to your SSR return once airborne and a label displayed. All your departures, changes to ETD, nav gear, rego etc, it all comes through into our displays. As you will have been issued a discrete 4 digit code for an IFR flight, the ATC doing Cagrs can still use your label and radar identification will be monitored. There is nothing to stop the RAAF Cagro passing you radar derived traffic info and mode C info. Rememeber they are rated and endorsed controllers performing this task. Also if VFR and you call at Nobbies for eg, you could again be issued a code from the Willy ADATS bin and this can be used. I'm not sure how they will run it but this is done at other units. Its only a couple of clicks on the screen to get a code. Also all Military radars are primary and SSR, so they will see you.

From a controllers point of view most of us don't like doing Cagrs and its actually very difficult not to jump in and control the traffic. Defineately better than CTAF but very frustrating actually when a simple heading or change of level can maintain separation but when doing Cagrs, we are not allowed to control acft, just update the traffic. Personally I would much rather take the airspace and control, it can be less work and traffic is positively separated. My opinion only.

Hope this helps.

For Toa and Mostly tossas, here are acouple of links about Willy.

[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']http://www.maitlandmercury.com.au/news/local/news/general/raaf-put-in-jeopardy/1380063.aspx[/font][FONT='Arial','sans-serif'] Recent article from Def. Minister[/font]

[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']http://cust.idl.com.au/0999000010/paul/raaf.htm[/font][FONT='Arial','sans-serif'] Bit of an old site but good history of the base. [/font]

[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']http://www.airforce.gov.au/bases/williamtown.aspx[/font][FONT='Arial','sans-serif'] RAAF website[/font]

[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']http://www.portstephens.nsw.gov.au/files/64910/File/PSCEconomicDevStrategy.pdf Port Stephens Shire Council report, have a look at chap 6[/font]

[Dick Smith]

If AsA or CASA OAR , or anyone, are going to "invent" a new form of safety study it must be validated. This has not happened.

As Prof. O'Neill has said, "-subjective judgements can be very inaccurate"-

You have te be suspicious of a "safety study" which shows that Williamtown can operate without even a class D tower.

At least the radio operator at Williamtown will now be in the tower and have the assistance of a radar display.

And why would "the Government" want to keep any particular individual out of " airspace policy" - especially an individual who wants the policy set using a strict scientific criteria?

Could it be so those who resist change a catered for? I reckon so!

By " Government, do you mean the "Department" ?

[garudadude]

Mostlytossas,
Your ignorance when it comes to those that defend Australia is astounding. I thought your reply to my last post was pure wind-up material.... I didn't reply because I thought it would show that you actually had me 'hook, line and sinker' for a while there (in the parlance of our times).
'My Dad and Uncles served in WW2, so I'm Mr Military!' Classic!!
Williamtown is Australia's major Fighter Base as well as the centre for excellence for FAC. It was there first, if you don't like the RAAFies using it, then pony up some tax dollars to put in a parallel rwy.
You can't poach kids from TAFE to become ATC either... the two qualities required are called SA and capacity. You cannot train either, you appear to have neither.
See you at the sushi bar.
GD

[C-change]

Dick,
What was the "safety study" that you refer to and do you have a link to it?

I'm curious to see what process was used by CASA and if the resulting fatique for the WILLY Atcos, when all traffic returns, was included in any risk assessment.

[crisper]

As Prof. O'Neill has said, "-subjective judgements can be very inaccurate"-
yeah Dick.... have a good hard look at that

[peuce]

Silly question time ....

So, the Willy Controllers have been recalled to provide a CAGRO service from their exisiting Controller Workstations, using their exisiting Radar Displays ...

Why aren't they just providing their normal Control function ?

[Dick Smith]

Here is an interesting point. I have always understood that when the military do some training at Avalon – even in a King Air - they pay to have the tower manned. That is, they don’t want to fly around without controlled airspace.

I also understand it is the same with the C-17 when flying at tower airports – they either man the tower, or pay to have it manned.

Does anyone know the military regs in relation to this? Are they based on protecting passenger carrying operations, and if so is there an inconsistency in relation to the Christmas stand down at Williamtown?

By the way, I notice that the NOTAM says the airspace can become active at any time. Is this to become active to protect military transport aircraft?

[Dick Smith]

C-change, have a look at the CASA Williamtown Aeronautical Study February 2008 and Williamtown Review October 2008 reports (see here).

Note that fatigue was not included, and they did not even look at the safety advantages of radar in preventing Controlled Flight Into Terrain accidents.

It is interesting to note that the chart shown on the last page of the October 08 report does not show where the figures came from.

[QSK?]

Dick:

Twice on this thread you have made the following statement (my emphasis):

....CASA would water down the requirements with a fake safety case at the last moment

These statements demonstrate how irrational you really can be on occasions and, if I was in charge of CASA, I would seriously consider taking legal action against you for possible defamation as your comments seem to be implying that CASA personnel are intentionally and corruptly abusing their powers and established due process. If these emotional statements are a true reflection of your normal thought processes and maturity, I am staggered that the previous Australlian Government ever saw fit to allow you to hold positions of seniority and influence in the previous CAA and CASA.

There is no doubt that safety cases can, on occasions, be flawed in that they were based on incorrect data or invallid assumptions but, in my experience, they are always conducted with the best of intentions by safety management staff and are NEVER FAKED as there are too many checks and balances within the Government system that prevent this from happening. In any case, Dick, do you honestly believe that anybody inside CASA would seriously put their whole career on line by faking a single safety case on something as insignificant as CAGRS vs ATC at Newcastle? Get real Dick, your comments are a good example of conspiracy theoretics at its worst!

In my personal view, the only flaw that I can see in Australia's aviation safety management processes is that some Government ministers and agencies are still failing to identify Dick Smith as the biggest single threat to the advancement of a safe and affordable aviation environment for Australia.

[Dick Smith]

QSK, you are bringing up some interesting points on a very serious issue.

There is no doubt that safety cases can, on occasions, be flawed in that they were based on incorrect data or invallid assumptions but, in my experience, they are always conducted with the best of intentions by safety management staff and are NEVER FAKED as there are too many checks and balances within the Government system that prevent this from happening.

The same could have been said about the Wheat Board when the bureaucrats were writing fake invoices to hide the secret commissions to Saddam Hussein.

You state:

In any case, Dick, do you honestly believe that anybody inside CASA would seriously put their whole career on line by faking a single safety case on something as insignificant as CAGRS vs ATC at Newcastle?

Yes, I do, in exactly the same way as bureaucrats put their careers on the line so Australia could sell wheat to Iraq. What other explanation could there be?

The reason CASA does not take any action in relation to my statements about fake safety cases is because they know that my comments are true. For example, why don’t they even make a public announcement in relation to this? Bruce Byron put out an announcement in relation to Williamtown being safe under a civil operated air/ground – just before the Minister decided to instruct the military to come back and offer a service using the radar displays.

I’ll give you one proven example of how they fake a safety case. One of the most important safety mitigators given to allow Williamtown to operate without air traffic control over the Christmas period was the fact that general aviation pilots had been educated on how to fly through the airspace outside the hours of Defence operation.

Look at the CASA October 2008 Williamtown Review here. Look at the Executive Summary on page 3. Paragraph 1.4 states:

The controls put in place since the 2007/2008 POS for the hours outside of Defence provided ATC and which were in effect at the time of review included:
b. Defence and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)
had developed and published, in the AOPA magazine, guidelines
for transiting Williamtown airspace.

(My underlining).

As shown in my solicitor’s letter to CASA (see here), this is a blatant lie.

The only “guidelines” published in the AOPA magazine were in relation to the airspace when it was active and a clearance was required. When this was pointed out to CASA in my solicitor’s letter, they simply stonewalled, did not answer the question, and maintained their safety study was accurate.

I can assure you that these people are going down the same line as those at the Wheat Board. It is really sad and I just hope it will be rectified before a major accident occurs.

[mostlytossas]

QSK You say Government dept's never fake reports? What do you call WMD then 5 odd years later and god knows how many needless lives lost and maimed. Then there is the children overboard, even the Navy were trying to correct the reports but were told to shutup.
Having worked in the public service in a past life I can tell you it goes on all the time. Usually not a blatant lie like the above ( the Howard Govt perfected that ) it usually goes something like this. The Govt decides it would like a certain outcome so it makes that known to the relevant dept's. These public servants then go about doing the govt's bidding by having surveys, consulative meetings,etc with all different interest groups but, and here's the the important bit they keep control and only they know what everyone else proposed. They then formulate a proposal or three, option A,B,C etc with advantages, pro's and con's etc and only put the bits in it that suit their favored outcome. This is then presented to the Govt with the recommendation of option B being accepted for instance, which is of course the result they wanted to start with.
Beutiful aint it? If anyone complains after they say indignantly,but you were all consulted!
Sometimes the Dept's do this themselves and keep the Minister in the dark until the last minute to achieve the desired result too. After all realistically rarely does the minister of the day know much about the Dept he is responsible for or the work they do anyway. Depending on who is in Government at any time the members usually come from farmers, small business, unions, lawyers (heaps of them) or like Downer from father to son.
Most us mere mortals have neither the time to run for office or the inclination. You may laugh but that comedy show Yes Minister is VERY close to the bone and was written by someone with intimate knowledge of how goverment works.

[mostlytossas]

Garudadude...Read my post again. The reason I put you in your box was because of your comments about my respect for the military. I told you I have every respect for them and why. Never claimed to be "Mr Military" far from it. If you had been watching this site for the past few days you would have read of my questions to C-Change and ToA and my appreciation to them for there well informed info.
You sound like your still in nappies ( with a tag like dude you'd have to be) grow up sonny.
Coz right now your still a ********!

[Willoz269]

People, get some perspective here...we started talking about the federal arm of aviation and we ended up with Iraq's trade agreement and Weapons of Mass Destruction????

They have nothing to do with CASA....it may be part of the government as far as legislation in general, but it is an independant arm....or are we going to say that the head of CAA all those years back was paid for by the Labor government of the time, when he retrenched nearly 4,000 employees?? (can't remember the exact figure)....no, nothing to do with it.

To say that the department blatantly falsifies the reports is irresponsible and of an obvious self-serving agenda. I happen to know quite a few people who work very hard towards the safety of the aviation in this country, and I take offence on their behalf. They rely on the ground work of experts to make a decision....and Dick, we are talking about real experts here....you should know how no 2 experts have the same opinion!

[Dick Smith]

Mostlytossas, thanks for the explanation of how the system works. I can see the scenario in relation to Williamtown.

First of all, Bruce Byron announces to the aviation Taskforce (which I was a member of) that he would not be allowing Williamtown to operate over the 08/09 Christmas break without air traffic control. Presumably the military then tell the Department that they are not going to operate the service and won’t cooperate with Airservices in any way.

Then Airservices Australia tells the Department that they won’t be providing a service there as they are not allowed to man the military tower.

Rather than someone showing some leadership and resolving this quite childish issue, the next step takes place. It would be a question like this, “Would it be possible to re-do the safety case again to see if Williamtown can be operated over the Christmas period without any air traffic control at all?” (Wink wink).

The CASA Office of Airspace Regulation produces a new safety case, which (amazingly) shows that air traffic control is not necessary there at all. No doubt the bureaucrats involved believe they are doing the “right thing” just as the bureaucrats in the Wheat Board thought they were doing the right thing by Australian farmers.

If this is not the correct scenario, you would wonder why the Minister or Bruce Byron, or Mike Taylor (the head of the Department) did not issue a simple press release explaining how Dick Smith is wrong, that the safety case is not a fake and explaining how they were able to justify not having air traffic control at the busiest and riskiest time of the year.

Of course they remained silent as the Wheat Board bureaucrats remained silent.

The sad thing is that the airline passengers were never asked to be involved. I bet if they were allowed to decide whether they should pay 50 cents per ticket extra for full air traffic control, that they would have said yes.

Are we to wait for a horrendous accident before these problems are fixed?

It is interesting that the dishonesty with the Wheat Board was only exposed by the United Nations. I suppose we will have to wait for a Royal Commission after an accident before a similar situation is exposed within the aviation bureaucracy.

[Dick Smith]

Willoz269, you say that it is irresponsible to claim that the “Department blatantly falsifies the reports.” It wasn’t actually the Department I was complaining about, it was the CASA Office of Airspace Regulation.

I too know of lots of capable people who worked towards the safety of aviation in this country and they are certainly being let down by the “ground work of experts.”

For example, I have written a number of times to Shane Carmody, the Deputy CEO of CASA, asking him why these new subjective safety cases have not been validated. Rather than answer me, he simply stonewalls and doesn’t mention anything about validation at all.

I’m not a scientist but I have been reliably told by scientific experts that if you are going to invent a new way of looking at risk, you have to make sure that your system works and has been validated. CASA refuses to do this and will not even explain why they believe validation is unnecessary.

Bruce Byron once said to me in relation to the people doing these new subjective safety cases, “Dick, these people have got religion.” I think by that he meant that they had a fundamentalist view of their own correctness and they could see no need for anyone to check whether their system was correct or not. I agree with Bruce Byron on this.

[Gundog01]

Here is an interesting point. I have always understood that when the military do some training at Avalon – even in a King Air - they pay to have the tower manned. That is, they don’t want to fly around without controlled airspace.

I also understand it is the same with the C-17 when flying at tower airports – they either man the tower, or pay to have it manned.

Rubbish Dick. Now you are just making stuff up to support your feeble case (whatever it is, it seems to be lost amongst your anti-establishment ramblings). Not that how RAAF Kingairs or C-17s has anything to do with the current situation at Williamtown. No where is anything written in defence guidlines or procedures about paying to man towers and not operating unless in controlled airspace.

Stop making up BS.

[Dick Smith]

So why did the military pay to have the tower manned at Avalon when they did their King Air training there?

[mostlytossas]

Dick, My post on how Dept's get the outcome they want was more general and not specific to aviation as I worked in the Public Works on Water Supplies, Gaols, major constructions etc but the scenario you describe wouldn't have been far off the mark.
That's why I said yesterday the minister should have stuck to his guns and backed his dept (RAAF). If he had said the Raaf controllers are standing down for 4weeks due to their need for R&R and unless AsA take over for that period then the airport is closed. Because I am not going to allow any undue risk to occur or have any blame aimed at the RAAF should things go horribly wrong blah,blah, and so on.
I reckon it would have taken about a day with the lobbying power the airlines like Qantas has for a temporary tower to be installed as, like you say is done at Bathurst.

[Dick Smith]

Mostly, I believe you are 100% correct.

The problem is that it would be known that CASA would roll over easily to prevent any controversy. Watch "Yes Minister" to undersand why.

One day CASA will stick to an objective safety criteria- then this type of capture will go away!

[Green on, Go!]

If this is not the correct scenario, you would wonder why the Minister or Bruce Byron, or Mike Taylor (the head of the Department) did not issue a simple press release explaining how Dick Smith is wrong, that the safety case is not a fake and explaining how they were able to justify not having air traffic control at the busiest and riskiest time of the year.

My Bolding.

Are the resident military flying squadrons not observing the Period of Operational Standby? They would normally break for the same period as the ATCOs were looking to.

Have Newcastle Airport applied for and received a temporary exemption from the 6 RPT moves per hour agreement?

If locally-based military flying is significantly reduced or not existent, Newcastle Airport Ltd is only allowed to permit the agreed amount of RPT moves and GA operations are restricted as usual, then how can this statement be true?

Dick, notwithstanding your original assertions, when you say things like this, that given the above are not likely to be correct, it goes to your credibility. If this statement is erroneous, how can I and others in the industry be sure that the rest of your rhetoric is factual?